Fluoride is reported as a little more toxic than lead and a little less than arsenic, yet it is allowed to be consumed in parts per million while the other two are allowed in parts per billion. Where's the logic or common sense in that?
This chart shows tooth decay rates are unequivocally in decline equally well in fluoridated countries as in non fluoridated countries. Does this not indicate that there is no benefit to fluoridation, especially using a dangerous toxic waste product like unpurified, untested hydrofluorosilicic acid that also contains lead, arsenic, merccury, chromiun and other toxic pollutants? See the specifications of the contents of this acid as supplied to our City for injection into our water supply
The above chart shows that in the provinces of Québec and Ontario, cavity rates are almost identical, yet Québec had a fluoridation rate of just 6.4% whereas Ontarians were fluoridated at just under 76% over the survey period. Does this not indicate that fluoridation has no impact on tooth decay, considering that the populations of both provinces have comparable populations with equally good socio-economic lifestyles? Unpublished reports for British Columbia and Alberta show comparably similar data.
Fluorosis is now endemic in most of the United States. Canadian Dentists report an equally disturbing amount of dental fluorosis that needs their intervention to repair and cover up. Is it not surprising that they would support water fluoridation since it can bring them such substantial income as tooth decay rates decline over time? One dentist in Toronto, Canada, has revealed in a confidential email that it could cost as much as $20,000 CDN (2010 value) to repair such fluorosis depending on the severity.